CHEN CHERYL DEANNA v. CHEN PAK YIN STELLA

CACV 24/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 24 OF 2015

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAP NO. 16 OF 2008)

________________________

________________________

________________________

____________________

DECISION ON COSTS

____________________

Hon Kwan JA (giving the Decision on Costs of the court):

1.  On 1 September 2015, we handed down judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s application to stay the appeal proceedings with costs against her to be assessed summarily on a gross sum basis.

2.  The defendant’s solicitors served a statement of costs for this purpose on 7 September but we declined to carry out summary assessment as the statement did not comply with Practice Direction 14.3 para 10 for want of a certification by the solicitors that the amount of costs claimed does not exceed the defendant’s liability for costs to her solicitors in respect of the summons/hearing/action, etc.

3.  On 23 September 2015, the defendant’s solicitors lodged a rectified statement of costs containing the certification as required.  The amount of costs claimed is in the total sum of $72,113.

4.  The defendant’s solicitors have ceased practice on 1 October 2015 and the defendant has filed a notice to act in person on 30 September.

5.  The plaintiff, who acts in person throughout, responded to the rectified statement by two letters dated 5 and 10 October 2015.  The first letter stated inter alia that she would wait for the receipt to be produced by the defendant’s solicitors in respect of the defendant’s payment for the hearing in question before she would respond further.  The second letter enclosed a “list of objections” giving her response and objection to each and every item of the costs claimed. She proposed to reduce the total amount of costs to $29,731.70.

6.  The plaintiff stated in the list of objections that she is applying to pay the costs to be reduced in the way she proposed in 60 days, upon production of all the related bill of costs, or the taxing master’s ruling of the items in the list of objections and she requested an oral hearing for taxation if no agreement could be reached with the defendant on the disputed items in the list of objections.

7.  The plaintiff’s position as stated above is wholly misconceived.  As decided in our judgment of 1 September 2015, the defendant’s costs are to be assessed by this court summarily on a gross sum basis.  This would be dealt with on paper.  There would not be any production of the related bill of costs or lodgement of a list of objections.  Nor would there be any oral hearing for taxation before a taxing master.

8.  Notwithstanding the misconceived position taken by the plaintiff, we have nevertheless taken into consideration the objections to each and every item in the list of objections.

9.  We assess the reasonable fees due to the defendant on a gross sum basis at $48,065, of which $37,000 would be the fees of the solicitors.  We have not made any reduction for any item of disbursements.